Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Ellen Are Definitely Not Running for Office


Hi, it’s me Ellen. And it’s me, television star
and America’s sweetheart, Julia Louis-Dreyfus. Me– me, too. And then we’re both
registered voters as well. That’s right. For instance, if you wanted
to vote for me and Julia as president and
vice president, you would have to register to vote. Not that we’re running. But I mean if we were,
it seems much more likely that I would
be president and you would be vice president. You really have to
register to vote first. That’s our point. Yes, of course. And each state has
its own deadline. So if you live in Montana– For instance. –check your
deadline to register. Or New Mexico, or New York, or– Right, or Colorado. Or Michigan. Or-ee-gon. Or-ee-gon? Mm-hm. I think it’s Or– Or-i-gon. Or-i-gon? No, that’s incorrect. That’s why you’re more
vice president material. [BEEP] Oh, it’s Or-gan. No, that’s– it’s not Oregon. Oregon sounds like
you’re playing an organ, like in church. Oregon. That’s– no, it’s Or-gan. Not– it’s not Or-gan. No one says, where are you from? Look it. I see what it says. But it’s not saying the– It’s Or-gan. No, Or-e-gon. Or-gan. Oregon. You’re saying– You’re– Now it sounds– what
you say is crazy. What you sound– you’re crazy. Again, we’re not running. No. But we will be registering
and voting in that order. Go to ellentube.com
to find out more.

Iowa Caucus Explained – How does it work? | QT Politics


Iowa is the first state to have the opportunity
to weigh in on presidential primary contests, making the Iowa Caucus an invaluable contest
for candidates vying for their party’s nomination. For the 2020 election, the Democratic Party
will officially begin choosing their party’s leader in rowdy public precinct meetings all
across the state on Monday, February 3rd. Iowa’s delegates represent just 1% of the
national total, but outcomes in Iowa greatly influence future contests. More often than not, the top choice in Iowa
goes on to become the party’s presidential nominee. Few doubt the indelible influence of Iowans
when it comes to selecting presidential candidates, but even fewer seem to really understand the
process. In this video, I’ll answer this burning question
about the Iowa Caucus: How does it work? The Iowa Caucus is the first contest for the
democratic primary, which will determine presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, who will
in turn run against the Republican candidate, almost certainly President Donald Trump, in
the 2020 Election. The contest culminates at the Democratic National
Convention, which for 2020, will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in mid July. At the convention, the president is chosen,
based on votes made by delegates. Delegates, like electors in the electoral
college process, are actual human beings who actually vote, on behalf of their communities. There are two kinds of delegates. There are unpledged delegates, also known
as super delegates, who are granted a vote because of their status within the party—these
are generally elected career politicians and members of the DNC. In Iowa, 8 of the 49 delegates are unpledged. For the 2020 election, the super delegates
will not vote until the second ballot, meaning if a majority of the other type of delegates
coalesce behind one candidate—that candidate will secure the nomination. These delegates, are called pledged delegates. So named because they are pledged to vote
for a particular candidate—one determined by the outcome of their state’s contest. Iowa will send 41 pledged delegates to the
National Convention in 2020. In the first ballot, they must vote for their
designated candidate, but if the convention goes to a second ballot, they can change their
vote. Most states select their delegates with a
primary contest—which is a statewide secret ballot vote—not unlike the process of voting
in general elections. In Iowa, there’s a caucus, a far more complicated
process—which is, historically, why Iowa gets to go first. The more complex and active process also means
voter turnout is relatively low. Generally speaking, only the more politically
active and passionate voters tend to show up. On the evening of February 3rd, Iowans will
gather in 1678 precinct locations, as well as 96 satellite locations across the state,
country, and globe. At 7 PM, their doors will shut to begin
the process. First alignment: Voters will split up into different sections
of the room, to designate their top choice of presidential candidate. There may also be a gathering of undecided
voters. First count: Everyone gets counted, and caucus organizers
take note of groups that are not viable, in other words, too small to win delegates. Generally speaking, a candidate needs 15%
of voters in a room to be viable, although smaller precincts might set a higher bar to
clear. At some caucuses, however, the threshold is
higher than 15%. In caucuses that elect just one delegate,
the first count is sufficient. After the alignment, the caucus as a whole
elects their county delegate by a majority vote. In caucuses electing two delegates, the group
must have at least 25% to be considered eligible. Those electing three have a threshold of 16
and 2/3%. In caucuses that elect four or more, the threshold
is 15%. Second alignment: If a candidate does not meet this threshold,
their supporters can realign to support another candidate. Or, they can attempt to persuade other voters
from non-viable groups to join their group. They have fifteen minutes to do so. Unlike in previous contests, for 2020, voters
who select a viable candidate with their initial preference are not allowed to realign. They will be given presidential preference
cards to write their choice down. If they get tired of the process, they can
hand in their cards, leave early, and still be counted in subsequent votes. But, since convincing the supporters of non-viable
candidates to switch over can have an astounding impact on the nomination of a presidential
candidate—dedicated supporters are likely to stick around. Final count: Another count is taken. Every candidate who clears the viability threshold
is awarded at least one county delegate, with more awarded proportionally to candidates
with more votes. The state party then calculates and report
the number of “state delegate equivalents” each candidate has won based on precinct caucus
results. Once all precincts have reported in, the National
Convention Delegate count can be calculated and reported. These are the crucial numbers. They tells us how many delegates from Iowa
will support each candidate at the DNC—in other words, who won, and by how much. Technically speaking, this is only the beginning
of the process. 11,402 county convention delegates will go
on to their county convention in March. There, 2,107 District and State Delegates
will head to the District Conventions on April 25th And it isn’t until the State Convention
in June that the 49 delegates who will go to the Dem National Convention in Milwaukee
are finished being selected. Of course, few bother to follow these conventions,
as the important results are already determined by the February precinct caucuses. And just one week after Iowa, most everyone
will focus in on the next most important early state: New Hampshire. New Hampshire, of course, has a primary election:
a far simpler, straight forward system. In fact, while caucuses were once the most
common system for choosing nominees, most states have opted to switch over to a primary. Still, in Iowa, the old ways prevail, and
the raucous, inaccessible, and frankly, bizarre system remains in place. A primary would be easier, but Iowans manage
to recurrently live the answer to this question about their president-picking process: How does it work?

Pete Buttigieg on election results, paying for health care and bringing America together


JUDY WOODRUFF: Recent polls in early voting
states show Pete Buttigieg’s popularity surging among Democratic voters, putting the mayor
of South Bend, Indiana, in the top tier of candidates vying for their party’s nomination
to challenge President Trump a year from now. But with that rising support comes increased
scrutiny. And Mayor Pete Buttigieg joins us now. Mayor Buttigieg, welcome back to the “NewsHour.” It is almost exactly a year away that voters
will be deciding who to support in the general election. But I want to ask you about what happened
yesterday, the so-called off-year elections in several states. Do those tell us anything about 2020? PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), Presidential Candidate:
Well, I have always said there is no such thing as a permanently red state. And when you see the governorship of Kentucky
go to a Democratic candidate, when you see the chambers flipping in Virginia and a lot
of other encouraging results, what it tells you is that a lot of people, including people
in the habit of voting for a Republican, are fed up with what the Republican Party is doing
right now, in particular its embrace of a president who goes against every value, progressive
and conservative, that we used to count on from either party. So I think it is very encouraging. It shows us that, if we do a good job of making
sure that we reach out to energize our base and to recruit as many Americans as possible,
including people who maybe have thought of themselves as Republicans in the past, offer
a message and a vision of the future where they see that they can belong, even as we
move to solve these serious issues around health care, climate, the economy and more,
we absolutely can win, not just the White House in 2020, but, crucially, win the Congress
and win across the states too. JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, let’s talk about
some of the issues. You mentioned health care. In the last Democratic debate, you were critical
of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare for all proposal. And I’m quoting. You said: “No plan has been laid out yet to
explain how that multitrillion-dollar hole is supposed to get filled in.” As you know, in the last few days, she’s given
details for how she says her plan will be paid for. So, my question to you is, do we now know
how her multitrillion-dollar hole is filled in? PETE BUTTIGIEG: Well, there is a lot of aggressive
math in there about cutting the military, assuming that immigration reform happens,
and getting about a trillion out of that, and some other areas that are controversial
among the economists. The point I’m making is that we don’t need
to spend tens of trillions of dollars in order to address this problem. The idea of my proposal, Medicare for all
who want it, is that we take a version of Medicare and make it available to anybody
who wants in on it, without commanding people to adopt it, if they would prefer their private
plan. It has the advantage of trusting Americans
to make their own decisions, but it also has the major advantage of costing $1.5 trillion,
which, of course, is still an awful lot of money. But it is fully paid for, it is fundable,
without having to go into the more challenging and controversial math being used to explain
a plan that is $20 trillion or $30 trillion or more, depending who you ask. JUDY WOODRUFF: There are critics on the left,
though, who are saying it sounds all well and good, but what if doesn’t do is, it doesn’t
provide coverage for everybody. PETE BUTTIGIEG: It is certainly set up to
make sure that everybody has coverage. It is designed so that nobody falls through
the cracks. And if you are not covered, you — covered
at all, you can actually retroactively be added on our plan. What it does mean is that not everybody is
on the public plan. Look, I think that the Medicare-like public
plan we’re going to create is going to be the best option for most Americans. And if I am I’m right about that, then most
Americans will choose it, until, eventually, it is the single-payer. It will be the glide path to Medicare for
all. But, crucially, if it is the case that, for
some Americans, the private plans they have are better, we’re going to be really glad
we didn’t force them off of those private plans. And, in particular, I have been talking lately
to a lot of union members who are happy with the private plans that they negotiated for,
fought for, sometimes gave wage concessions in order to gain. Why kick them off of those plans, when we
can let people choose? JUDY WOODRUFF: Taxes. You have said that you would return the corporate
rate back up to 35 percent. President Trump put it down near 20 percent. You had said you would consider raising the
marginal tax rate for high earners. You have said a wealth tax makes sense. My question is, do you have numbers you can
give us, percentages? The other Democrats running for president
have put numbers on this. What are yours? PETE BUTTIGIEG: So, more numbers will be forthcoming,
alongside the numbers of what we’re proposing to invest. We’re not doing taxation for its own sake. I’m proposing changes to the tax code to make
sure that my policies are paid for. So, as I put out more policies, you are going
to see more adjustments on the tax side. But in terms of what we have put out already,
for example, that $1.5 trillion I was talking about that is the cost over a decade of my
health care plan, it is fully explained in terms of two things. And the math breaks down basically in these
pieces. About $100 billion of what we need to go toward
it will come from allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. The other 1.4 will come from the rollback
of the corporate rate portion of the Trump corporate tax cuts, tax cuts that mostly went
to line the pockets of those who didn’t need help and, I think, in the long run have done
nothing to make our long-run sources of domestic business competitiveness any better. JUDY WOODRUFF: Several other things I want
to ask you about, Mayor Buttigieg. Iran. You have said you wouldn’t have pulled the
United States out of the Iran nuclear deal, as President Trump did. That has, though, happened many months ago. We now have a very different reality on the
ground. Iran is now talking about uranium enrichment. They’re talking about firing up centrifuges. It’s a different situation now. So what would you do if you are elected president? PETE BUTTIGIEG: Well, unfortunately, things
have moved in the direction of Iran building out more of their nuclear plan, the exact
thing that the nuclear deal was preventing, which shows just what a foolish move it was
of the Trump administration to wreck the deal. That, unfortunately, also means there is no
going back to the situation that the Obama administration was in when they negotiated
that first deal. But I still think keeping Iran from developing
nuclear weapons capability has to be a major U.S. regional security priority. And that means we’re going to have to structure
another deal that will have the same effect. And we may only be able to get to it incrementally,
because, unfortunately, the deal that was actually doing the job, as the Trump administration
itself certified, was destroyed by this administration. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mayor Buttigieg, your critics
on the left are now saying they think you have been moving to the center from where
you started out this year. They say you have moved to the center on climate
change, on decriminalizing border crossings, raising middle-class taxes and so on. How do you answer that? PETE BUTTIGIEG: My positions are the same. Now, I also think that there is more and more
pressure, especially in the kind of pundit sphere, to try to align all of us on the left-right
spectrum. I just don’t think that that is helpful at
a time like this, when we are starting to see some of the ideological categories get
more and more scrambled. Look, I have led the field in proposals on
bold actions for democratic reform. And, again, my positions haven’t changed. There are other areas where — like health
care, where, I guess, if your top priority is to find the ideologically furthest-out
solution, you are probably going to look to a different candidate than me. But the proposals I am putting forward would
make me the most progressive candidate, the most progressive president in my lifetime. JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me finally ask you about
impeachment. As you know, the House of Representatives
announced when they are going to start public hearings. And that’s going to be next week. We are going to hear from the people who are
going to be testifying about what happened with the president and Ukraine. How much do voters on the campaign trail bring
up impeachment with you? PETE BUTTIGIEG: Some. Not a whole lot. Most of the questions that I get are about
things like health care and whether we are going to be able to grow opportunity, overcoming
racial inequality, serving rural America, making sure that prescription drug costs are
under control. But it is definitely on people’s minds, as
it must be. This is a process of utmost gravity, a constitutional
process to hold the president accountable for misconduct that he has already confessed
to in public. There is no escaping it. There is no ignoring it. But, also, as much as possible, we have got
to keep that process separate from the process of partisan politics. And the part that I have a role in as a candidate
for the Democratic nomination for president is to try to make sure that this president
is defeated, if indeed he is the president, in November of next year, or, regardless,
that we get a president who can actually lead this country forward, unite it, and deliver
on the big problems that need solutions right now. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you said if he is the
president. Right now, the Senate majority leader, Mitch
McConnell, says, if the House votes to impeach, the Senate — there are not the votes in the
Senate to convict. But my question to you is, if there were — if
the president were removed from office, why would you be the best Democrat to go up against
your fellow Indianian Mike Pence, who would step up and be the president? PETE BUTTIGIEG: Well, I know a thing or two
about the vice president, a fellow Hoosier is the term we prefer here in Indiana. And I have got to say that his far-right,
extreme social ideology doesn’t reflect this country, and it doesn’t even reflect this
state. When he tried to push this ideology on our
state, it wasn’t just Democrats, it was a lot of Republicans of conscience who came
together. We all stepped up, and we all pushed back
on that. And as somebody who has now come on board
with a presidency that is an affront, not only to our values, but to his own professed
values, I’m certainly prepared for that debate and would look forward to the opportunity
to lay out the contrasts and show Americans a different kind of solution coming out of
Indiana. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mayor Pete Buttigieg joining
us again, thank you very much. PETE BUTTIGIEG: Good to be with you.

Why Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax Won’t Work


We can’t afford just to tinker around the
edges, a tax credit here, a regulation there, our fight is for big structural change. Elizabeth Warren wants the federal government
to provide free healthcare for every American, college for every student who wants it, childcare for every parent, and housing for low income families. And she wants to pay for it all with a new
tax on the richest of the rich. She calls it the Ultra-Millionaire Tax. Skimming a bit more off the top of the bank
accounts of the ultra wealthy might sound like a good deal for working and
middle class Americans who feel like they’re falling behind. But the reality is that wealth taxes have
been tried before and they haven’t worked the way that Warren
promises. Here’s why: Warren wants to levy a 2% annual wealth tax on all households with a net worth of over
50 million dollars and a 3% annual tax on those households with
net worths over one billion dollars. All I’m asking for is a little slice from
the tippy tippy top. A 2 or 3 percent tax on multi millionaires
and billionaires might not sound like much. They got to pitch in two cents and two cents
on every dollar after that. Wealth taxes are different than other taxes
like, say, an income tax or a sales tax which tax money when it moves around. A wealth tax on the other hand taxes the same
pot of money every year. Meaning that over time it becomes smaller
and smaller. It’s essentially a tax on large savings, the money that investors and entrepreneurs
rely on to start new businesses. But I do think a system that allows billionaires
to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people
are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health,
is wrong. Unlike Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Warren has never said that the existence of billionaires is immoral but her plan to tax two to three percent of
their wealth on an annual basis is clearly motivated at least in part by a
desire to reduce their wealth and what she perceives as a power imbalance
in our society. The economists who helped Warren design her
plan have said that the idea is to make rich people
less wealthy. In analyzing her plan, they wrote that: It’s not really about raising tax revenue, it’s about using government power to make
sure rich people have less. -that much wealth is bad for our economy and
bad for our democracy. Warren has often pitched her plan as a way
to raise money from the ultra rich to pay for more government benefits for everyone
else. And on that count, it’s likely to fall short. Warren says her tax plan will raise 2.75 trillion
dollars over a ten year period. But other countries have tried wealth taxes and found that they raise far less money than
expected. In 1990, there were twelve OECD nations with
wealth taxes similar to Warren’s. Today only four remain. In Scandinavia of course healthcare is a right,
higher education is free. Despite the tendency of politicians like Bernie
Sanders to hold up Denmark and Sweden as paragons of Democratic Socialism that the
US should emulate, the reality is that both nixed their wealth
taxes in the 1990s because too many rich citizens were pulling
their money out of the country. This capital flight resulted in lower rates
of entrepreneurship and relative economic stagnation. Not only did the wealth tax hurt the economy, it didn’t even raise the money it was supposed
to. When Sweden eliminated it’s wealth tax it had virtually no effect on government finances. France tried a wealth tax for more than a
decade starting in 2000. It helped push an estimated 42000 millionaires
out of the country. They didn’t pay the tax, they just left. What Warren wants to get around the capital flight
problem by taxing the money no matter where in the
world it’s located. And imposing a 40% exit tax on anyone who
wants to renounce his or her citizenship. We’re going to be out there countin’ them
and watching them. What we built right into the plan was far
more sophisticated and more investment in the enforcement. Warren’s plan relies on hiring more IRS agents partly to deal with the complexity of evaluating
total individual wealth. But throwing more tax collectors at the problem
isn’t going to change the fact that the wealthy are very good at protecting
their money. By offshoring it or by putting it into unique,
hard to value assets like artwork. Austria is one of the countries that used
to have a wealth tax. One of the reasons the country ended it was
because the cost of enforcement was so high. Based on it’s failure in other countries and her vague proposals for addressing those
failures, there’s no compelling evidence that Warren’s
Ultra Millionaire Tax will raise the revenue she claims. The wealth tax is best understood not as a
targeted revenue raiser but as a symbolic declaration of opposition
to the existence of out sized wealth regardless of how it was obtained. What I want is I want these billionaires to
stop being freeloaders. Warren has described the Ultra Millionaire
Tax as a tool for addressing inequality. But really it’s just a presidential candidate’s
way of saying ‘I oppose the existence of very rich people’ She could have just said it.

Sanders’ plan to protect journalism draws concern


GOOD EVENING, I’M DAVID AS AN INTERVENING ON PENN STATE JONATHAN, CHRISTINA, CAROL AND JOHN. THE 2020 DEMOCRAT MAY NOT LOVE HOW THE MEDIA COVERS HIM BUT HE SAYS HE WANTS TO SAVE QUOTES, REAL JOURNALISM, BY DRIVING OUT ITS CORPORATE OWNERS. HE SLAMS THE LIKES OF JEFF BESOS SANDERS NEW PROPOSAL AIMING TO STOP CORPORATE CONSOLIDATION TAKE ANTITRUST ACTION AGAINST TECH GIANTS LIKE FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE AND BOLSTER INDEPENDENT NEWS BY ENDORSING A QUOTE, TARGETED ADVERTISING TAX FOR FUNDING NEWSROOMS. SANDERS STATING PART QUOTE, TODAY’S ASSAULT ON JOURNALISM I WALL STREET BILLIONAIRE BUSINESSMAN SILICON VALLEY AND DONALD TRUMP PRESENT A CRISIS AND WHY WE MUST TAKE CONCRETE ACTION AND WE SHOULD NOT WANT EVEN MORE OF THE FREE PRESS TO BE PUT UNDER THE CONTROL OF A HANDFUL OF CORPORATIONS AND BENEVOLENT BILLIONAIRES WHO CAN USE THEIR MEDIA EMPIRES TO PUNISH THEIR CRITICS AND SHIELD THEMSELVES FROM SCRUTINY. JONATHAN, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF BERNIE’S SOLUTION?>>FREE PRESS THAT MEANS FREE FROM GOVERNMENT. BUT OUT BERNIE. THIS IS INFURIATING THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO ROLE ZERO, ZILCH NO ROLE IN JOURNALISM AND IN SPEECH AND IN IDEAS BUT BOTH BERNIE IN THE LAST AND ON THE RIGHT AS WELL HAVE CONSISTENTLY BEEN ATTACKING THE FREE PRESS NOT JUST ONE INSTITUTION OR ONE PURE RADICAL OR REPORTER FOR THE INSTITUTION AT LARGE AND THAT’S WHAT PAVING THE WAY FOR THESE CALLS ARE MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION OR INSTITUTION INTO WHAT COULD BE MORE SACRED THAN A FIRST AMENDMENT OUR FREE PRESS. BUT OUT, BERNIE.>>CAN WE GET AN AMEN OUT IN HERE? I AGREE WITH YOU JONATHAN. THE FUNNY THING IS I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE NOT HAD A FREER PRESS THAN WE DO NOW IN THE FACT THAT EVERYONE HAS A VOICE WHETHER PUBLISHING YOUR OWN BLOG ON THE INTERNET OR GOING ONTO A BIG, BAD CORPORATE SITES LIKE FACEBOOK OR TWITTER AND TO HAVE YOUR OWN VOICE AND PUT IT OUT THERE. WE’VE NOT HAD THAT BEFORE. UNLESS YOU ARE A JOURNALIST OR KNEW SOMEBODY WHO WOULD PUBLISH YOU CANNOT GET YOUR VOICE INTO THE MIX SO I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE PROBLEM IS NOT THAT WE DON’T HAVE A FREE PRESS BUT CONSUMERS HAPPEN TO CLICK ON CLICK BEAT ALL THE TIME YOU DON’T HAVE THE BEST TASTE. DAVID: PANEL, STAY IN. I WANT TO BRING IN THE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER, DAN GAYNOR. YOU MIGHT NOT LOOK HIS SOLUTIONS BUT BERNIE HAS HAD ON REAL PROBLEMS WITH JOURNALISM, NO?>>JOURNALISTS HAVE A TON OF PROBLEMS AND BERNIE’S SOLUTIONS ARE NOT GOOD. LET’S HAVE THE SOCIALIST MESS WITH THE CONSTITUTION IN FREE PRESS. NOT ALWAYS A GOOD THING. THESE ARE NOT EVEN NEW SOLUTIONS AND I – I WROTE AN OP-ED FROM BOX NINE YEARS AGO TALKING ABOUT HOW A FREE PRESS IS TRYING TO GRAFT FROM GOVERNMENT FROM JOURNALISTS $230 BILLION THAT BACK THEN BECAUSE THEY KNOW IF GOVERNMENT IS FUNDING JOURNALISM IT WILL END UP FUNDING LEFT-WING JOURNALISM JUST LIKE IT DOES IN EUROPE AND JUST LIKE IT DOES HERE IN AMERICA WHEN IT COMES IT. PBS, JOURNALISTS BASICALLY ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT OPERATION ALREADY AND CAN YOU IMAGINE IF THEY GOT MORE MONEY? THEY WOULD NOT BE MORE CONSERVATIVES BUT MORE LIBERAL.>>PART OF THE GOVERNMENT OPERATION JOURNALISTS ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT OPERATION DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY?>>YEAH, THAT’S WHAT – [INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS]>>THAT’S COMPLETELY INCORRECT. I WANT TO GO BACK TO ANOTHER POINT BEFORE DAN JOINED JUST, HE SAID GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT IN BEING AND EVERYONE HAS A VOICE BUT HAVEN’T YOU IN THE PAST, ON THE SHOW, ARGUE THAT MAYBE THE LIKES OF FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE ARE SHUNNING THE RIGHT WING VOICES AND FAVORING LIBERALS BY US OR HAVING THE LIBERAL BIAS SO ISN’T THAT GOING CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT YOU’RE STEALING RIGHT NOW THAT EVERYONE HAS A VOICE AND OUT THEY DON’T? THERE IS A CONCERN THAT THE SOCIAL MEDIA GIANTS IS THAT THEY DO HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL OVER WHAT WE SEE AND CONTRIBUTE OR GET A LOT OF THE ALGORITHM AND MORE PEOPLE ARE TURNING TO THEM SO I DO THINK IT’S AN ISSUE AND NO, JOURNALISTS ARE NOT PART OF THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION OR WHATEVER YOU JUST SAID, DAN. [INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS]>>IF I COULD RESPOND BACK TO CHRISTINA TO ADDRESS THAT HE POINT. IF YOU LISTEN TO I SAID ON THE PROGRAM BEFORE I SAID I FEEL LIKE THESE FORMS SHOULD PROTECT THE SPEECH AND THAT’S WHAT THEY SHOULD DO BUT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT INTERVENE AND THEY SHOULD BE THE FREE MARKET THAT PUTS PRESSURE ON COMPANIES AND SHAREHOLDERS SHOULD PUT PRESSURE ON THEM AND FOLLOW FREE SPEECH OUT OF PRINCIPLE NOT BECAUSE THEY’RE REQUIRED TO BY LAW. I AM NOT ARGUING FOR GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION BEFORE OR TODAY.>>NO, BUT IN THE PAST – GO AHEAD, JOHN.>>CHRISTINA, I WILL AGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU SAY THAT REPORTERS ARE NOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION BUT LOOK TO THE WASHINGTON POST WITH – BY THE WAY, BERNIE SANDERS CALLED OUT AS WELL. THEY HAVE 47 PULITZERS AND THEY ARE THE ONE THAT BROKE THE WATERGATE SCANDAL AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT THEY WERE SUPPOSEDLY WORKING FOR. ANY POLITICIAN WE HAVE, RIGHT OR LEFT, WILL GO AFTER ANY PRESS THAT’S AGAINST HIM AND US HURTING OUR PRESS AND YOU HAD BILLIONAIRES WITH THE GRAHAM FAMILY WASHING THE WANTING TO POST AND WE’VE ALWAYS HAD BILLIONAIRES – NOT ALWAYS GREAT LIKE WILLIAM RANDALL HEARST AND JOSEPH PULITZER. WE HAD BAD THINGS HAPPEN BUT WERE STARTING TO SEE MORE FREEDOM OF PRESS NOW AND I DON’T THINK THESE POLICIES WILL TAKE. DAVID: DON, YOU WOULDN’T BE FOR A SYSTEM WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS A TAX AND PAY FOR SOME KIND OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED OR GOVERNMENT REGULATED JOURNALISM SYSTEM THAT IS PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS, WOULD YOU?>>OH MY GOD, NO, DAVID. ABSOLUTELY NOT. I’M WITH JONATHAN. I DON’T WANT THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY OF IT BUT I THINK IT’S UNFAIR TO BE JOURNALISM COMPLETELY AS A LIBERAL PROPAGANDA.>>I AGREE WITH YOU BUT HONESTLY I ASKED THIS QUESTION TODAY IF IT DOESN’T THE PRESIDENT, ON SOME LEVEL, BEAR SOME OF THIS RESPONSE ABILITY BECAUSE HE TAKES EVERY OPPORTUNITY NOT TO GO AFTER ONE PARTICULAR NEWSPAPER REPORTER BUT A TAX THE PRESS AT LARGE AND THE MEDIA IS IN THAT SEWING THIS ELEMENT OF DISTRUST THAT ESSENTIALLY PAVES THE WAY FOR BURNING?>>I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THAT.>>ONE THING ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. HE DID NOT START THIS FIGHT. THE MEDIA SUPPORTED – THEY LOVE TO TRUMP FOR A LONG TIME AND THEN THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD SO HE FOUGHT BACK. HE SAID SOMETHING THAT I WIDELY DISAGREE WITH. HE SAID THE PRESS IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE. THEY’RE NOT THE ENEMY OF THE LEFT. THEY LOVE THE LEFT. BUT I ENEMIES TO CONSERVATIVES? ABSOLUTELY.>>HE DID NOT START IT? WHAT KIND OF ARGUMENT IS THAT I HEAR THAT FOR MY EIGHT -YEAR-OLD KID. [INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS] DAVID: JOHN, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE MEDIA GIVES DONALD TRUMP A FAIR SHAKE?>>I THINK THE MEDIA HAS AN INHERENT LIBERAL BIAS, YES, I AGREE WITH THAT BUT WE DON’T HAVE NEWSPAPERS THAT ARE BASED IN DES MOINES OR CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA SO YES, THE MEDIA HAS A LIBERAL BIAS AND I DON’T THINK THAT LEADS INTO STORIES. DAVID: YOU DON’T? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN – DO YOU REMEMBER THEY TRY TO PUT OUT A HEADLINE THAT SEEMS LIKE IT MIGHT BE PRO- TRUMP AND THEY HAD TO CHANGE IT AT THE LAST MINUTE BEFORE IT HIT THE PRESSES.>>DAVID, ISN’T THAT THE BEAUTY? CAROL ALLUDED TO THIS. THERE ARE MORE SOURCES NOW AND MORE JOURNALISM FOR MORE VOICES THAT’S EVER BEEN HAD BEFORE AND CITIZEN JOURNALISM WERE PODCASTING.>>PEOPLE THAT ARE SPEWING LIES ON THE BLOG IS NOT JOURNALISM. YOU HAVE MORE PEOPLE BUT TO JOHN’S POINT THERE’S BEEN 1400 COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE LOST THE NEWSPAPERS AND WHERE THE LOCAL NEWS OUT THERE? [INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS]>>LAST TIME I CHECKED THE FIRST AMENDMENT INCLUDED FREEDOM OF PRESS BELONGS TO ALL OF US BUT YES, IF SOMEONE BLOGS WHETHER THEY ARE A HIGH PAY NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER OR ORDINARY PERSON ON THE STREET THEY ARE BLOGGING THAT JOURNALISM BUT THE PROBLEM IS ->>CHRISTINA WOULD DECIDE WHAT JOURNALISM IS. DAVID: HOLD ON. HOLD ON. AS AN OLD PRINT GUIDE LET ME GO BACK TO DAN ON THIS BECAUSE I THINK CHRISTINA MAKES A GOOD POINT. IN THE OLD DAYS I WORKED AT THE JOURNAL FOR MANY YEARS AND WE HAD FOUR LEVELS OF EDITORS BEFORE ANYTHING WOULD HIT THE NEWSPRINT. THAT IS GONE NOW AND A LOT OF JOURNALISM IT’S JUST RIGHT FROM YOUR FINGERS INTO THE INTERNET AND BECOMES COLD, JOURNALISM. THAT, JONATHAN, IF YOU HAVE THESE LEVELS OF EDITORS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO CHECK THE ACCURACY OF YOUR STORY THAT DOES PROVIDE – NEVER HAVE A GUARANTEE BUT MORE EVIDENCE THAN WHAT YOU HAVE PRINTED IS TRUE. RIGHT?>>AND IT HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.>>WELL, THIS HIGH LEVEL OF ACCURACY ARE THE SAME ONES, DAVID, THAT LATE JASON BLAIR . DAVID: BIG MISTAKES WERE MADE.>>YEAH, BUT WHAT I THANK YOU MIGHT QUIBBLE WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BUT TO CRITICIZE THEIR ACTUAL REPORTING THEY SEND REPORTERS OUT AND DO REPORT THE NEWS AND AT THE END OF THE DAY IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT, TURN IT

DNC is in real serious trouble: Borelli


♪♪ LIZ: DEMOCRAT OFFICIALS RINGING THE ALARM BELLS THAT DNC YOU’RE MAKING SAME MISTAKES HILLARY DID, NOT REACHING VOTERS IN KEY BATTLEGROUND STATE LIKE OHIO, MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA, WISCONSIN, THAT TRUMP WON. GET RIGHT TO FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR DENEEN BORELLI. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IS CARPET BOMBING THESE STATES. DENEEN, WHAT ARE THEY DOING?>>PRESIDENT SHOWING RESULTS FROM PROMISES ACROSS THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, SEEING IT ACROSS THE COUNTRY. LOOKING AT VERY STATES THAT YOU MENTION, THE DNC IS IN REAL SERIOUS TROUBLE RIGHT NOW, THEY’RE ONE BIG HOT MESS, LIZ. WHEN YOU LOOK HOW THEY’RE HAVING PROBLEMS FUND-RAISING, FOR EXAMPLE. THE MONTH OF JUNE THEY RAISED $8.5 MILLION. RNC RAISED 20.7. YOU LOOK AT THEIR UNUNIFIED MESSAGE. THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY CANDIDATES. THE DNC CAN’T GET BEHIND ONE, THERE ARE SO MANY OF THEM. THEY HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES GOING ON WITH THE DNC AND WITH THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. LIZ: PRESIDENT ONE THESE STATES, PENNSYLVANIA, MICHIGAN, DIDN’T VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS SINCE 1988. WISCONSIN SINCE 1984. I WANT TO GET TO WHAT JUDGE DENEEN PIRRO SAID ABOUT PRESIDENT WARREN OR PRESIDENT SANDERS. WATCH THIS.>>THEY’RE CONVINCED IN THE END RICH WILL PAY FOR IT. THIS GUY CAN’T DO BASIC MATH WHICH IS NO SURPRISE SINCE YOU NEVER HAD A REAL JOB. THEY CAN’T POSSIBLY PAY FOR ANY OF THIS STUFF. THE BOTTOM LINE WITH BERNIE SANDERS IS, THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DEMOCRAT SOCIALISM, UNLESS IT IS JUST SOCIALISM FOR THE DEMOCRATS. MAYBE THEY WILL BUY INTO IT, BUT AMERICA IS NOT. LIZ: TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT SANDERS. TO JUDGE JANINE’S POINT, $60 TRILLION FOR COST OF HIS PLAN TO OVERHAUL THE ENTIRE U.S. ECONOMY. DO VOTERS WANT A PRESIDENT WARREN OR PRESIDENT SANDERS, DENEEN?>>NO, THAT IS JUST OUTRAGEOUS. WHAT SANDERS WANTS TO DO IS RAISE TAXES ON HARD-WORKING AMERICANS. WHAT AMERICANS ARE SEEING IS MORE MONEY IN THEIR WALLETS, FROM THE TAX CUTS AND ROLL BACK IN REGULATIONS. SO THEY’RE SEEING BONUSES. THEY’RE SEEING WAGE GROWTH. WHAT SANDERS WANTS TO DO, TURN ALL OF THAT AROUND. THAT IS NOT GOOD FOR HARD-WORKING AMERICANS. LIZ: CRITICISM, GETTING BACK TO THE DNC, DEMOCRATS FOCUSED ON EXPANDING THEIR BASE, NOT TARGETING VOTERS THEY NEED IN THE SWING STATES. IT IS ASTONISHING WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW. THEY’RE PUTTING UP CANDIDATES, WHO SAY WE WILL WIN WHITE HOUSE, RAISE EVERYBODY TAXES, OVERHAULING ENTIRE U.S. ECONOMY, “GREEN NEW DEAL,” FREE TUITION, BREAK UP TECH COMPANIES, BANKS, AGRIBUSINESS, HOWER GRID ALL OF IT. IT IS REALLY UNPRECEDENTED, DENEEN. NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS.>>THIS IS A RADICAL PLAN AND IT IS OFF THE CHARTS. IF YOU WORK IN THE ENERGY INDUSTRY, LIZ, DEMOCRATS TALKING ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH FOSSIL FUELS COMPLETELY, DOING AWAY WITH GOOD-PAYING JOBS, NOT MINIMUM WAGE JOBS. FOLKS ARE LISTENING, PAYING ATTENTION.

Media loses hope after poll shows Biden trailing candidates


DANA PERINO. THIS IS THE FIVE. JOE BIDEN’S CAMPAIGN GETS OUT OF CONTROL AS DOUBTS CREEP IN ABOUT HIS ELECTABILITY PITCH TO VOTER VOTERS. SLIDING 13 POINTS IN A NEW POLL. THIS CAMPAIGN IS PUSHING BACK. IS THE DAMAGE ALREADY DONE? THE MEDIA IS STARTING TO DOUBT HIM. WATCH.>>I THINK THERE’S A SENSE THAT HE COULD FALTER AND THEN SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE TO RISE.>>IF I WERE IN THE BIDEN CAMP, I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT RIGHT NOW, HE’S HOLDING HIS OWN IN THE TOP THREE AGAINST A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER PEOPLE.>>WE ARE USED TO SEEING HIM NOT DO TOO WELL UNDER FOLKS UNDER 50.>>Dana: I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE BIDEN FOLKS SAY THAT HE STILL HAS THIS COMMANDING LEAD.>>Juan: RIGHT NOW, I THINK HE’S UP PLUS SEVEN. I THINK THIS IS REASSURING FOR BIDEN’S TEAM. BUT ALSO, IT’S INTERESTING TO ME, THE QUESTION ABOUT YOUNG VOTERS AND BLACK VOTERS. YOUNG VOTERS, REALLY DEAD, AS YOU JUST SAW THERE IN THAT LITTLE GRAPHICS, I MEAN, THEY’RE JUST NOT EXCITED ABOUT JOE BIDEN. I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CROWD SIZE WITH ELIZABETH WARREN, EVEN BERNIE SANDERS, YOU DON’T SEE IT, AND I THINK YOU DON’T EVEN LEVEL A PASSION. IT’S MORE LIKE, YEAH, I’M SETTLING FOR HIM, BECAUSE I THINK HE CAN BEAT TRUMP. THE SECOND PART OF THIS, THOUGH, AS BLACK VOTERS. BLACK VOTERS ARE THE KEY.>>Dana: AND ELIZABETH WARREN HASN’T BEEN ABLE TO –>>Juan: ELIZABETH WARREN IS, I THINK 15%. PETE BUTTIGIEG HAS A TERRIBLE TIME WITH US TOO. ESPECIALLY LOOKING TOWARD SOUTH CAROLINA. IT HAS NOW SUSTAINED BIDEN.>>Dana: GREG, ONE THING ABOUT THESE POLLS IS THAT BECAUSE THE MEDIA LIKES TO HAVE A FIGHT, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS THAT THERE IS SOME MOVEMENT, IT’S AMPLIFIED.>>Greg: YEAH, AND I THINK THAT IS WHY JOE IS OUT OF THIS RACE. I AM A PART OF THE MEDIA. IT’S A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. IT GETS EVERYBODY THING HE THAT THE POSSIBILITY IS THERE. NOW YOU HAVE A BERNIE, JOE, AND LIZ WARREN THREE WAY, WHICH IS LIKE A SEQUEL TO COCOON 2. EXTRA LOUD AND CRANKY. I MEAN, IT IS. IT’S GETTING UP THERE. I GO BACK TO MY THEORY THAT YOU STOLE FROM ME LAST WEEK. BIDEN NEEDS TO GET TO A NUMBER THAT’S LARGER THAN BERNIE AND LIZ COMBINED BEFORE BERNIE OR LIZ DROPS OUT. BECAUSE, WHEN ONE DROPS OUT, THE OTHER ABSORBS THE OTHER LIKE A STRANGE DEMON. THEY ONLY BECOME POWERFUL IF THEY ARE TOGETHER. HE’S GOT TO GET THAT PLURALITY ABOVE 40.>>Dana: WHAT ABOUT ELIZABETH WARREN? SHE’S GOT ALL THESE BIG CROWDS. HE’S BEEN NICE TO HER SO FAR.>>THAT WILL END AT ONE POINT. THERE WILL BE A MOMENT OF TIME BY WHICH THEY HESITATED AS TO WHO THEY GO TO. BUT IT WILL BE ELIZABETH WARREN LONG BEFORE JOE BIDEN. IT AFFIRMS A SENSE THAT PEOPLE HAVE THAT JOE BIDEN CONFIRMED FOR EVERYBODY, WHEN HE SAT IN FRONT OF A TINY CROWD AND SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY NOT LIKE HIM, BUT I THINK YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO HOLD YOUR NOSE AND VOTE FOR HIM. HE WASN’T EVEN TALKING TO THE PRESS AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS CANDIDACY. I SHOULD HAVE RUN IN 2016, BUT IT WAS HILLARY TIME, SO I GUESS I’M GOING TO RUN NOW. I’M RUNNING UNDER THE OBAMA LEGACY, WHICH THE PARTY NO LONGER WANTS.>>Dana: THERE ARE A COUPLE MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING. I THINK THAT WE HAVE THIS TAPE THAT WE CAN PLAY FOR YOU. THIS IS, REMEMBER, BETO O’ROURKE, HE STILL IN THE RACE. LET’S EAT. DO WE HAVE IT HERE? THEY WANT ME TO READ IT. BETO O’ROURKE THOUGH, HE HAS BEEN MARKED FOR THIS. IT WAS ABOUT COOKING BURGERS. I THINK THAT PEOPLE HAVE A LOT TO SAY ABOUT IT. WATCH. OKAY, SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?>>Greg: I DID WHEN THE CHAMPIONSHIP. FIRST OF ALL, WHERE’S THE GRILL? SECOND OF ALL, YOU PUT IT ON THE ENGLISH MUFFIN?>>Dana: I KIND OF LIKE THAT, THOUGH. HAVE YOU EVER EATEN A HAMBURGER ON A ENGLISH MUFFIN?>>YEAH. ONLY AT BREAKFAST TIME.>>Dana: HE WAS GETTING IN A WORKOUT. EMILY, WILL HAVE YOUR COMMENT ON THIS. HE’S GOT TO HIT THE GYM.>>Emily: YEAH, I FOUND THAT PAINFUL TO WATCH. I’M NOT GOING TO LIE. CAN I MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS? IT WAS A LITTLE AWKWARD FOR ME. IF I COULD MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS JUST ON THE BIDEN THING. I THINK THAT IT’S BECOMING QUITE CLEAR THAT HE IS THE START OR NOMINEE. HE IS WHO EVERYONE CAME OUT OF THE GATE SUPPORTING WHILE THEY FIGURED OUT WHICH CANDIDATE RESONATED WITH THEM. REGARDLESS OF THE, THERE IS A TREND. A REAL CLEAR POLITICS TREND. IT’S CLEARLY DECREASING. INTERESTINGLY, THE HEAD OF THE INSTITUTE FOR POLE AND CAME OUT AND SAID, LOOK, YES, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS LATEST POLL SHOWS THAT HE STILL HAD IN IOWA. BUT, I DIDN’T MEET ONE BIDEN VOTER WHO WAS EXCITED ABOUT VOTING FOR BIDEN.>>Dana: THERE IS EXCITEMENT AROUND BILL de BLASIO. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE SOME TAPING OF HIM?>>Greg: NO. I DO NOT LIKE HIM. THUS THE PHENOMENON WHERE A ROBOT OR A HUMANOID CREATURE RESEMBLES A RESEMBLANCE TO A REAL HUMAN. ROBOTS WHO DON’T LOOK HUMAN FREAK US. THAT’S WHAT BETO IS. HE’S ALMOST, BUT NOT QUITE HUMAN, BECAUSE HE KEEP DELMONT KEEPS TRYING TO MIMIC THE BEHAVIORS OF HUMANS. HE’S A HUMANOID ROBOT. TRUMP IS THE BEST AT IT.>>Juan: WHAT HAS BETO DONE BEFORE CUSTOMER CHANGED A TIRE. WE ALL KNOW THAT SOCIAL MEDIA DRIVES POLITICS.>>Greg: TRUMP IS THE MASTER.>>Dana: THIS IS SOCIAL MEDIA. THIS IS AN ACTUAL INTERVIEW FROM BILL de BLASIO. WATCH THIS.>>YOU WERE ELECTED TO BE PRESIDENT, YOU WOULD BE THE TALLEST PRESIDENT EVER. ABRAHAM LINCOLN CURRENTLY HOLDS THAT TITLE. HE WAS 6’4″. YOUR 6’5″.>>I THINK THREE TIMES ONLY. THERE’S ONLY THREE EXCEPTIONS IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC. IF YOU WANT TO GET RID OF DONALD TRUMP, WHO IS THE TALLEST CANDIDATE?>> SPEAK ALL RIGHT.>>Greg: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. EVERY PRESIDENT BUT ONE HAS BEEN WHITE. SO, YOU SHOULD HAVE A WHITE PRESIDENT, BECAUSE EVERY PRESIDENT HAS ONE EXCEPT FOR ONE, WHO IS WHITE. THAT’S HOW WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT HEIGHT AS HIM IN THE FUTURE. 14 YEARS AGO, THERE ARE GOING TO PLAY THIS VIDEO AND SAY, “MY GOD, THAT’S ALL THEY TALKED ABOUT SHORT PEOPLE?” YOU HAVE HEIGHT PRIVILEGE.>>Juan: IS THAT RIGHT? LET ME JUST SAY, HOW COME YOU DON’T PICK ON TRUMP?>>Greg: THAT’S GREAT. HE’S NOT DRUNKEN. BILL de BLASIO WAS JOKING. I DON’T BELIEVE THAT BETO O’ROURKE ACTUALLY LIKES

Conway: Trump will not allow China to play Americans for ‘fools’


MARTHA MacCALLUM STARTS RIGHT NOW. SPEAK TO A GREAT STORY. WE ARE ON THE ROOFTOP HERE. HELLO, EVERYBODY. IF YOU LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES, THAT IS SAID TO BE A CHINESE CURSE. AND NO DOUBT WHILE ORIGIN IS DUBIOUS, IT FITS THE MOMENT WE ARE LIVING IN. REPORTS TONIGHT THAT CHINESE OFFICIALS ARE CONFUSED BY THE PRESIDENT. AND WILL NOT COME TO THE TABLE RIGHT NOW AFTER CONTRADICTIONS LIKE THIS.>>IF THEY DON’T WANT TO TRADE WITH US ANYMORE. THAT WOULD BE FINE WITH ME. WE WOULD SAVE A LOT OF MONEY.>>IF THEY DON’T WANT TO MAKE A DEAL, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. IT’S GOING TO BE GREAT FOR CHINA. IT WILL BE GREAT FOR THE U.S.>>Martha: THEY ALSO CITE PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLING XI A GREAT LEADER ONE MINUTE AND THE ENEMY AT THE NEXT. HIS SUPPORTERS SAY THAT HE IS JUST KEEPING THEM GUESSING ON PURPOSE.>>SORRY. IT IS THE WAY I NEGOTIATE. IT HAS DONE VERY WELL FOR ME OVER THE YEARS. AND IS DOING EVEN BETTER FOR THE COUNTRY.>>Martha: WE HAVE A LOT TO GET TO IN WASHINGTON TONIGHT, WE BEGIN WITH REACTION STRAIGHT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. KELLYANNE CONWAY, SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, GREAT TO HAVE YOU HERE. WHY DID THE PRESIDENT SAY THAT THEY HAD CALLED AND WANTED TO COME BACK TO THE TABLE? AND THEY SAY THAT THEY NEVER CALLED?>>THESE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. THE CHINESE ALLEGATION HAS BEEN HERE IN WASHINGTON MANY TIMES, AND WE HAVE HAD THE U.S. DELEGATION REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT.>>Martha: THEY ASKED TO REOPEN THE NEGOTIATION THAT THEY WERE READY TO COME TO THE TABLE AND TALK AND THEY ARE SAYING THAT IS NOT THE CASE.>>IS THERE ANYONE THAT THINKS THAT CHINA IS NOT READY TO MAKE A DEAL. THEY SAID THAT THEY HAVE DONE THAT MANY TIMES. THE PRESIDENT IS TAKING THE LONG VIEW ON CHINA. BECAUSE IT WAS NEGLECTED FOR SO MANY DECADES, MARTHA, THAT IT LAST LEFT US WITH A HALF A MILLION DOLLAR TRADE DEFICIT. THE FOURTH TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, THE STOLEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.>>Martha: THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MAJOR ISSUE AND THE PRESIDENT IS THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO TAKE IT ON.>>THERE IS AN ALLEGATION.>>Martha: WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE THAT IS GETTING HARD. AND THAT IS NOT SURPRISING GIVEN WHAT IS TAKEN ON HERE. SO CAN YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE ON WHERE THINGS STAND? AND WILL THERE BE A MEETING NEXT MONTH?>>THE PRESIDENT IS OPEN TO CONTINUE TALKS AND NEGOTIATION. HE HAS MADE THAT VERY CLEAR. AND A SERIES OF TWEETS NOT SO LONG AGO PUT TO CHINA THAT THIS IS ABOUT TRADE, ALSO WATCHING THE PROTESTERS IN HONG KONG, AND HE SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO GET IT OUT OF THIS COUNTRY AND OUT OF THE COMMUNITY AND KIDS. WE SEE HOW IT IS DESTROYING 32,000 LAST YEAR. BUT THEY WERE OVER IN CHINA VERY RECENTLY. THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT MIND WAITING IF IT IS A BETTER DEAL FOR AMERICA. THE OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE NOT BOTHERED TO MAKE ANY DEALS. THIS PRESIDENT CAME TO THE CITY TO DISRUPT IT AND PART OF TO HAE TO DISRUPT IT AND PART OF TO HAB TO DISRUPT IT AND PART OF TO HAL TO DISRUPT IT AND PART OF TO HAT TO DISRUPT IT AND PART OF TO HAR TO DISRUPT IT AND PART OF TO HAL TO DISRUPT IT AND PART OF TO HAT TO DISRUPT IT AND PART OF TO HAA TO DISRUPT IT AND PART OF TO HAE AGREEMENTS THAT NO LONGER SCREW THE AMERICAN WORKER AND AMERICAN EMPLOYERS. THESE THINGS TAKE TIME. IN THE MEANTIME, HE THINKS THAT TARIFFS ARE WORKING, AND LOOK WHAT HE DID WITH JAPAN AT THE G7. THIS IS A HUGE TRADE AGREEMENT. AND AGRICULTURE, BUT ALSO DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY.>>Martha: YOU HEARD THE INTRODUCTION THAT WE DID, AND IT WENT BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT MESSAGES. IS IT PART OF THE PRESIDENTS MO TO BE PREDICTABLE AND KIND OF LEAVE THEM GUESSING WHERE HE STANDS?>>SURE, BUT ANYBODY DOES NOT KNOW WHERE THE PRESIDENT STANDS ON TRADE WITH CHINA HAS NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION FOR TWO YEARS, MAINLY DECADES.>>Martha: DOES HE CONSIDER HIM A FRIEND OR AN ENEMY?>>HE SAYS THAT WE GET ALONG WELL, BUT WILL NOT ALLOW ANYBODY, LET ALONE THE NUMBER TWO ECONOMY IN THE WORLD PLAY AMERICANS FOR FOOLS AS HAS BEEN DONE FOR SO MANY YEARS. THIS PRESIDENT HAS PROVEN HE IS READY TO NEGOTIATE BETTER TRADE DEALS. HE HAS DONE IT WITH THE USMCA, THE PEOPLE THAT WORK BEHIND US, MARTHA, BETTER GET BACK HERE AND VOTE ON, THAT WILL HELP CONSTITUENTS LEFT, RIGHT, AND CENTER. BETTER, BIGGER NAFTA, CALLED UNC A, HE IS WILLING TO DO THAT WITH CHINA. AND PEOPLE ARE WAITING TO EXHALE FOR A TRADE AGREEMENT.>>Martha: THE FARMERS ARE, THE MARKET IS.>>IT IS PRECEDED BY THE ART OF THE NEGOTIATION.>>Martha: UNDERSTOOD. THERE ARE REPORTS OUT OF CHINA THAT THEY DON’T THINK THAT ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION. DOES THE PRESIDENT WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPEN BEFORE THE ELECTION? YOU SAY THAT HE IS WILLING TO WAIT, BUT HOW LONG?>>THE PRESIDENT SAID, I THINK IT WAS JUST TODAY, IF THEY ARE WAITING OUT THE CLOCK FOR 2020 THINKING THAT HE WON’T GET REELECTED, THEY WILL BE DISAPPOINTED. IT WILL BE HARDER FOR THEM TO GET A DEAL THEN. AND HARDER FOR AMERICANS TO GET A DEAL. WHY IS THE PRESIDENT DRIVING SUCH A HARD BARGAIN WITH CHINA? HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS TRADE DEFICIT, FORCED INTEREST, BUT THERE IS ANOTHER REASON. THE INDUSTRY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ROARING BACK AS PART OF HIS INCREDIBLE ECONOMY INCLUDE INDUSTRIES THAT WERE FLAT ON THEIR BACK AND LARGE PART BECAUSE OF OUR POOR RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA ON TRADE. SO OF THE 6 MILLION PLUS JOBS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED SINCE DONALD TRUMP WAS ELECTED, 1.2 MILLION ARE IN COMBINED MANUFACTURING, INFRASTRUCTURE, MINING, ALL OF THESE INDUSTRIES THEY WERE FIGHTING BACK, HE IS THERE FOR THE FORGOTTEN MEN AND WOMEN AND TRADE WITH CHINA.>>Martha: WHAT ABOUT THE FARMERS? 13% INCREASE IN BANKRUPTCIES THIS YEAR. AND THERE ARE REPORTS THAT THE AGRICULTURE SECRETARY WENT OUT THERE TO TRY TO CALM THEIR FEARS A LITTLE BIT. BUT HOW LONG CAN HE CALM THEIR FEARS IF THEY CONTINUE TO BE UNDER PRESSURE AND PERHAPS MAKE A DIFFERENT CHOICE?>>WE DON’T WANT ANYONE TO SUFFER. THE FACT IS THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE LONG VIEW ON DEALS LIKE THIS. WHAT COULD THE FARMERS AND RANCHERS AND THE AMERICAN AGRICULTURE ECONOMY BE LIKE IF WE ACTUALLY GOT A TRADE DEAL WITH CHINA THAT WORKS FOR AMERICAN FARMERS AND AMERICAN RANCHERS? WE KNOW THAT MANY OF THEM HAVE SEEN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. THERE HAS BEEN SOME COMPENSATION MEASURES, AND TAKING THE LONG VIEW MEANS WAITING FOR THE BEST DEAL POSSIBLE. THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS WELCOMES THEM TO COME BACK. IN THE TRADE TEAM, FRANKLY THEY HAVE BEEN TERRIFIC.>>Martha: HE SAID HIMSELF THAT NOBODY IS WILLING TO BITE THIS OFF. IT IS A BIG ISSUE. I THINK AMERICANS ACROSS THE BOARD AGREE THAT SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. SO PRESIDENT XI HAS ASKED THE PEOPLE OF CHINA TO PURSUE SELF-RELIANCE. HE SAID GET READY FOR THE NEXT — NEW LONG MARCH, HE CALLED IT. WILL THE PRESIDENT ASKED THE SAME OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? YOU LOOK AT THE EFFORT DURING WORLD WAR II. DOES HE SEE THIS AS A WAR? DOES HE SEE IT AS SOMETHING THAT WILL REQUIRE AMERICANS TO SACRIFICE A BIT?>>I FAIL TO SEE AN ANALOGY IN THIS REGARD. AT THE TRUMP ECONOMY IS WARRING AND BOOMING DESPITE THE PEOPLE THAT TALKED ABOUT RUSSIA, PRUSSIA, RUSSIA, NOW THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT RECESSION, RECESSION, RECESSION. LOOK AT THE DATA OUT OF BLOOMBERG TODAY. THE HIGHEST CONSUMER CONFIDENCE LEVEL IN 19 YEARS. YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH THE FACTS. IN THE FACTS SHOW AMERICANS ARE SPENDING MONEY –>>Martha: BUT FARMERS HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE IT ON THE CHAIN A BIT, AND GIVING THEM MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO GIVE THEM RELIEF. IS IT HIS VIEW THAT IT IS OKAY TO ASK PEOPLE TO MAKE SOME SACRIFICES BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT GOAL?>>THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE VERY CLEAR THAT IN ORDER TO GET THE BEST BILATERAL TRADE DEAL WITH CHINA THAT BENEFITS AMERICA UNLIKE THE WAY THAT IT HAS BEEN SO NONRECIPROCAL, IMBALANCED AND UNFAIR TO AMERICA, INCLUDING THE AMERICAN FARMERS AND RANCHERS, TO WAIT FOR THAT IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER. BUT IT WILL BE WORTH THE WAIT. AND I THINK THAT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE G7. OBVIOUSLY THE U.S. ECONOMY IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD INCLUDING THE G7 PARTNERS. ANY OF THEM WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THOSE FIGURES, MARTHA. AND AT THE G7, PEOPLE WERE TALKING ABOUT CHINA. BUT AT THE G7, THIS PRESIDENT NEGOTIATED MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH JAPAN. THE U.K. ONCE A TRADE DEAL. CHINA IS COMING BACK TO THE TABLE. AT THE U.K. WANTS TO WAIT UNTIL THEY SORT OUT THEIR OWN BREXIT, BUT ALL OF THE PEOPLE THEY ARE — OBVIOUSLY JUSTIN TRUDEAU WAS THERE. CANADA. THEY ARE AGREEING TO THE U.N THEY ARE AGREEING TO THE U.D SEE NOW. THEY HAVE THE TWEET. THEY HAD NO TIME TO VOTE.>>Martha: I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS A FEW OTHER TOPICS. PRESIDENT ROUHANI SAID THAT HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN AND TALK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AS WAS SUGGESTED BY EMMANUEL MACRON, BUT HE NEEDS THE SANCTIONS TO BE LIFTED BEFORE HE WOULD DO THAT, WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT’S REACTION?>>THE PRESIDENT’S REACTION IS THAT THE SANCTIONS ARE STAYING IN PLACE, BUT THAT HE WOULD BE OPEN TO MEETING WITH MR. PRESIDENT ROUHANI IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE RIGHT. THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD FOR MANY MONTHS, YEARS IN FACT, MARTHA, HE IS WILLING TO TALK TO WORLD LEADERS IF IT HELPS AMERICA. BUT HE DOES NOT REGRET, IN FACT, HE APPLAUDS AND IS VERY PROUD OF PULLING THIS COUNTRY OUT OF THAT FAILED IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL THAT WAS IN THE LAST DEMONSTRATION. HE BELIEVES THAT IRAN IS A BIG THREAT TO ISRAEL AND HAD BEEN, IN THE WORDS OF BENJAMIN OF BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, THE BEST FRIEND THAT ISRAEL HAS EVER HAD. GIVEN THE GOAL IN THE HEIGHTS AND THE LIKE. AND THE PRESIDENTS WILL KEEP THE SANCTIONS ON IRAN, BUT IF THEY WANT TO COME TO THE TABLE AND TALK ABOUT OTHER THINGS, THAT IS FINE. THEIR ECONOMY IS DOING TERRIBLE, JUST LIKE THE CHINESE ECONOMY.>>Martha: WE WILL SEE IF THAT IS MOTIVATION TO BRING THEM TO THE TABLE WITHOUT LIFTING SANCTIONS.>>WITHOUT HAIR DURING ISRAEL. OF COURSE.>>Martha: CHANGING GEARS TO THE INNER WHITE HOUSE ISSUES, ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI WHO HAD A VERY SHORT STAY AT THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT 11 DAYS, I THINK, HE WAS IN HIS JOB, HAS BEEN BLASTING THE PRESIDENT LEFT AND RIGHT AND GETTING QUITE A BIT OF ATTENTION FOR IT. THIS IS WHAT HE SAID MOST RECENTLY. LET’S PLAY THIS.>>I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW ELECTED PUBLIC SERVANTS OF THE LONGEST STANDING REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY IN EXISTING WORLD HISTORY. A 243-YEAR-OLD REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY COULD HAVE THIS SORT OF FULL-BLOWN INSANITY ON DISPLAY AND NOT ACT.>>Martha: FULL-BLOWN INSANITY ON DISPLAY, SAYS THAT THE COUNTRY MUST ACT AGAINST A PRESIDENT.>>THAT IS ONE PERSONS OPINION. THAT IS A NEW OPINION FOR ANTHONY. WE ALL KNOW THAT. A VERY NEW OPINION. BUT HE HAS ALSO JUST JUST SOMEBODY WHO IS OUT THERE I THINK GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION AND TRYING TO CAUSE TROUBLE IN A WAY THAT IS VERY UNLIKE THE ANTHONY THAT I KNOW, WHO WAS REALLY TERRIFIC ON THE CAMPAIGN. AND SO FAR AS HELPING TO RAISE MONEY, WAS A CONSTANT PRESENCE IN TRUMP TOWER TOWARDS THE END.>>Martha: WHAT HAPPENED?>>WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND THEY HAVE TWEETED AT EACH OTHER, AND I WILL LET, WHEN I DIE A LONG TIME FROM NOW, I HOPE, PRAY TO GOD, MARTHA, I WILL NEVER SAY I WISH I SENT ONE MORE TWEET. THAT WILL NEVER COME OUT OF MY MOUTH. THEY TWEETED AT EACH OTHER AND MADE IT CLEAR. BUT I ASK YOU A QUESTION, YOU SAID THAT HE IS GETTING ATTENTION. TO WHAT END? IN OTHER WORDS, ALL OF THE PEOPLE OUT THERE SAYING THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER, TO WHAT END? CAN I KEEP HEARING A NUMBER OF PEOPLE SAYING, THEY’RE ALL OF THESE REPUBLICANS WHO SAY IT IN PRIVATE WHAT I AM SAYING IN PUBLIC. WHERE ARE THEY? DO THEY WORK IN THE CAPITAL? HAVE THEM COME FORWARD TO. WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE? THESE MYSTERIOUS PEOPLE — WHERE ARE THEY? THEY CAN GET MEDIA ATTENTION ALSO IF THEY COME FORWARD. I KEEP HEARING PEOPLE, I KEEP SEEING PEOPLE ON TWITTER AND HEARING PEOPLE ON TV TALKING ABOUT ANALYSES OUTSIDE OF THEIR PURVIEW. OUTSIDE OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL PURVIEW. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS RIDICULOUS. I AM GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK FOR THE COUNTRY, THIS WHITE HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WE CONTINUE TO BE A FORCE FOR GOOD. AND ANTHONY BELIEVED THAT TOO. HE WAS THERE. HE WAS LOYAL. HE DID A LOT OF WORK.>>Martha: I DON’T WANT TO GIVE HIM ANY MORE TEATIME THAN WE NEED TONIGHT. BUT I WANTED YOUR ANSWER.>>IT IS DISAPPOINTING. BECAUSE HE WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE AND HELPED OUT AS HE COULD. AND WAS VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THAT JOB AT THE WHITE HOUSE.>>Martha: I’M SURE HE WAS FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. TAYLOR SWIFT GOING AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE LAST NIGHT AT THE MUSIC AWARDS. AND HERE IS — SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE EQUALITY ACT AND THE PETITION. SHE WANTS TO SEE THE EQUALITY ACT PASSED AND ONCE THE WHITE HOUSE TO GET ON BOARD FRED WATCH THIS PLAY>>AT THE END OF THIS VIDEO THERE WAS A PETITION AND STILL IS A PETITION — [CHEERS AND APPLAUSE] FOR THE EQUALITY ACT. IT NOW HAS HALF A MILLION SIGNATURES, WHICH, WHICH IS FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT IT WOULD NEED TO WARRANT A RESPONSE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. [CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]>>Martha: SHE IS WAITING. SHE IS TAPPING HER WATCH.>>I WOULD LOVE TO ASK THE AUDIENCE IF THEY EVEN KNOW WHAT THE EQUALITY ACT IS AND IS IN.>>Martha: THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS PAID UP OF THE COMMUNITY BELIEVES THAT IT WOULD GIVE THEM GREATER EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE AND ELSEWHERE.>>I ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE THE NEW TAYLOR SWIFT SONG THAT IS YOU NEED TO CALM DOWN. I CAN SING IT FOR YOU IF YOU SAY IT ON THE STREET THAT’S A KNOCK OUT, IF YOU PUT IT IN A TWEET, THAT’S A COP-OUT. I LOVE THAT. THAT’S BASICALLY WASHINGTON IN A NUTSHELL. BUT WHEN HOLLYWOOD AND SINGERS AND THEY ALL GO POLITICAL, IT SOUNDS IN THE MOMENT LIKE IT IS VERY POPULAR. AND WE HAVE SEEN SO MANY TIMES WHERE BACKFIRES AND BLOWS UP. BUT SHE IS SOMEBODY WHO WENT UP AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP HEAD-TO-HEAD UNITED STATES SENATE RACE IN TENNESSEE AND LOST CANDIDLY.>>Martha: CAN YOU GIVE HER ONE ANSWER FOR WHY DOESN’T THE WHITE HOUSE SUPPORT THE EQUALITY ACT?>>THE PRESIDENT SUPPORTS EQUALITY, NOT PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT HAVE POISON PILLS IN IT THAT CAN HARM OTHER PEOPLE. LOOK AT THIS ECONOMY. IT IS OPEN TO EVERYONE. PEOPLE HAVE JOB MOBILITY, DEREGULATION, TRYING TO BRING PEACE AND PROSPERITY AROUND THE WORLD IS SUPPOSED TO HELP EVERYONE. BUT WHEN IT SOMETHING HIS NAME TO SOMETHING. IT IS NOT TRULY THAT. AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT LEGISLATION.>>Martha: SHE CAN COME IN AND